10 ms·

Can someone explain why Uber had to shut down? Couldn't they have just complied with the regulation?

by abhi3 10y ago

briandear 10y ago
I would rather they shut down to protest the regulation. Consenting adults should be entitled to their own risk assessment. The government need not regulate everything. Over regulation is what led to the taxi monopolies. If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it. It isn't like school buses or teachers where there aren't other easy alternatives. If an Uber driver was unsafe, the market would correct for that. Are AirBnB hosts fingerprinted? Are hotel employees required to be fingerprinted? Hotel employees could enter your room and kill you while sleeping -- how is that any different than the risk posed by a rogue Uber driver?
- bsder 10y ago
  > If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it. Except that Uber is using venture capital money to subsidize rides to undercut the price of rides. That's great, until they drive the properly compliant ride services out of business and become their own monopoly. Keeping the ridesharing services market share fractured instead of monopoly is what really benefits the consumer.
  - studentrob 10y ago
    You're not wrong. Uber operates where I live in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, and rides are dirt cheap. They cost $2-$3 when a taxi is $3-$5. Both Uber and AirBNB have been ruled illegal in Taiwan. Uber continues to operate and pays the fines of drivers and passengers when they are caught. If a driver is caught 5 times, their license is permanently revoked [1] I like the idea of ride sharing apps, and I can respect Uber's attempts to try some civil disobedience. I don't think this investment will pan out for them. Taiwan just elected a new government that is even more focused on Taiwan-centric businesses than the last government. Uber would need to generate a lot of public support to become an exception. I don't see that happening. I see VC money flowing in and staying here. And like Austin, a legal competitor will pop up eventually with services that satisfy the public enough that they forget about Uber. I could be wrong. It seems to me Uber doesn't have much left up its sleeves. They seem primed to accept that there are many viable competitors. [1] http://international.thenewslens.com/article/36548 http://international.thenewslens.com/article/36548
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  Better still, ignore the regulation, keep operating, and force the courts to decide.
  - studentrob 10y ago
    Burning through VC money in the process? That's a risky move. Uber follows fingerprinting procedures in NYC and Houston, why not Austin? It seems to me Uber/Lyft are better off coming to the negotiation table to discuss a way forward.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      It's a lot riskier for the VCs to allow regulations like this to stand. Fingerprinting might be tolerable by itself, but this isn't really about fingerprinting, of course. Every major city whose regulators are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the taxi operators will come up with additional random expensive hoops to jump through, repeating as necessary until the competitor is run out of town. Anyone attempting to confront the incumbents with an innovative new service will suffer the death of a thousand cuts. (Which, of course, will eventually work to Uber's advantage, just like it did for the taxi companies. At which point the hero has lived long enough to see himself become the proverbial villain.) No, it's better to take a stand and fight these people head on. It's not OK to force every new business to decide whether it's safer to ask permission first or apologize later.
      - studentrob 10y ago
        U/L's position is not clear. Why operate with different rules in NYC? If they could articulate their desired policy to the public, maybe they'd find more support in Austin.
caseysoftware 10y ago
Because having a separate set of requirements for every group of customers that changes depending on where they are is a nightmare to manage.. at best. Look at what Amazon does in order to avoid sales tax in various jurisdictions. In terms of the law itself, the Mayor and City Council encouraged Uber and Lyft to break the law since there were no penalties anyway. Can you imagine what happens when the Council retroactively added a penalty? 10,000 drivers * N days * $X per violation = a huge number I detailed more of it here: https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamming-the-austin-tech-community-399d12b976e9 https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamm...
- studentrob 10y ago
  Why doesn't Uber take the initiative then and ask for a consensus on regulation? It seems clear that cities don't want to be bullied as much as Uber doesn't want to be bullied. The way to resolve disagreement isn't to retreat into respective corners, it's to talk it out. By not talking to each other, the expectations of cities and businesses are going to become more fractured over time. Each city and company will independently come up with its own game plan. This issue doesn't have a perfect solution. It has better ones, and worse ones. The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. If Uber and the top 10 cities in the US can agree on some policies, then they'll all probably be in better shape. Uber gets to operate with some comfort, and city leaders can focus on other things. Also, I read your blog post. I see you declined an invitation to attend a dinner with the mayor on the grounds that it was too secret. Why not just bring a reporter or tape recorder with you? People need to build good relationships before coming up with contracts or legislation. Without that bond, one party can't be too sure of the other. The written word is not always a good substitute for someone's true intent. It's better to meet someone in person on neutral ground first. Should we put microphones on our politicians 24/7 and transcribe every conversation? I think that's a bit much to ask, and would probably result in us losing such freedom ourselves. Alternatively, you can run or support a political campaign for a candidate in whom you believe. Eventually you may find he or she makes some decision with which you do not agree, and then you're back to finding someone else to support. That's a decades long alternative to simply coming to the table to work with imperfect people, particularly when you note that the result is still imperfect people. As Bill Clinton points out, we are over 99% the same [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo

Can someone explain why Uber had to shut down? Couldn't they have just complied with the regulation?

by abhi3 10y ago

Can someone explain why Uber had to shut down? Couldn't they have just complied with the regulation?

I would rather they shut down to protest the regulation. Consenting adults should be entitled to their own risk assessment. The government need not regulate everything. Over regulation is what led to the taxi monopolies. If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it. It isn't like school buses or teachers where there aren't other easy alternatives. If an Uber driver was unsafe, the market would correct for that. Are AirBnB hosts fingerprinted? Are hotel employees required to be fingerprinted? Hotel employees could enter your room and kill you while sleeping -- how is that any different than the risk posed by a rogue Uber driver?

bsder 10y ago
> If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it. Except that Uber is using venture capital money to subsidize rides to undercut the price of rides. That's great, until they drive the properly compliant ride services out of business and become their own monopoly. Keeping the ridesharing services market share fractured instead of monopoly is what really benefits the consumer.
- studentrob 10y ago
  You're not wrong. Uber operates where I live in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, and rides are dirt cheap. They cost $2-$3 when a taxi is $3-$5. Both Uber and AirBNB have been ruled illegal in Taiwan. Uber continues to operate and pays the fines of drivers and passengers when they are caught. If a driver is caught 5 times, their license is permanently revoked [1] I like the idea of ride sharing apps, and I can respect Uber's attempts to try some civil disobedience. I don't think this investment will pan out for them. Taiwan just elected a new government that is even more focused on Taiwan-centric businesses than the last government. Uber would need to generate a lot of public support to become an exception. I don't see that happening. I see VC money flowing in and staying here. And like Austin, a legal competitor will pop up eventually with services that satisfy the public enough that they forget about Uber. I could be wrong. It seems to me Uber doesn't have much left up its sleeves. They seem primed to accept that there are many viable competitors. [1] http://international.thenewslens.com/article/36548 http://international.thenewslens.com/article/36548
CamperBob2 10y ago
Better still, ignore the regulation, keep operating, and force the courts to decide.
- studentrob 10y ago
  Burning through VC money in the process? That's a risky move. Uber follows fingerprinting procedures in NYC and Houston, why not Austin? It seems to me Uber/Lyft are better off coming to the negotiation table to discuss a way forward.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    It's a lot riskier for the VCs to allow regulations like this to stand. Fingerprinting might be tolerable by itself, but this isn't really about fingerprinting, of course. Every major city whose regulators are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the taxi operators will come up with additional random expensive hoops to jump through, repeating as necessary until the competitor is run out of town. Anyone attempting to confront the incumbents with an innovative new service will suffer the death of a thousand cuts. (Which, of course, will eventually work to Uber's advantage, just like it did for the taxi companies. At which point the hero has lived long enough to see himself become the proverbial villain.) No, it's better to take a stand and fight these people head on. It's not OK to force every new business to decide whether it's safer to ask permission first or apologize later.
    - studentrob 10y ago
      U/L's position is not clear. Why operate with different rules in NYC? If they could articulate their desired policy to the public, maybe they'd find more support in Austin.

caseysoftware 10y ago

Because having a separate set of requirements for every group of customers that changes depending on where they are is a nightmare to manage.. at best. Look at what Amazon does in order to avoid sales tax in various jurisdictions. In terms of the law itself, the Mayor and City Council encouraged Uber and Lyft to break the law since there were no penalties anyway. Can you imagine what happens when the Council retroactively added a penalty? 10,000 drivers * N days * $X per violation = a huge number I detailed more of it here: https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamming-the-austin-tech-community-399d12b976e9 https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamm...

studentrob 10y ago
Why doesn't Uber take the initiative then and ask for a consensus on regulation? It seems clear that cities don't want to be bullied as much as Uber doesn't want to be bullied. The way to resolve disagreement isn't to retreat into respective corners, it's to talk it out. By not talking to each other, the expectations of cities and businesses are going to become more fractured over time. Each city and company will independently come up with its own game plan. This issue doesn't have a perfect solution. It has better ones, and worse ones. The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. If Uber and the top 10 cities in the US can agree on some policies, then they'll all probably be in better shape. Uber gets to operate with some comfort, and city leaders can focus on other things. Also, I read your blog post. I see you declined an invitation to attend a dinner with the mayor on the grounds that it was too secret. Why not just bring a reporter or tape recorder with you? People need to build good relationships before coming up with contracts or legislation. Without that bond, one party can't be too sure of the other. The written word is not always a good substitute for someone's true intent. It's better to meet someone in person on neutral ground first. Should we put microphones on our politicians 24/7 and transcribe every conversation? I think that's a bit much to ask, and would probably result in us losing such freedom ourselves. Alternatively, you can run or support a political campaign for a candidate in whom you believe. Eventually you may find he or she makes some decision with which you do not agree, and then you're back to finding someone else to support. That's a decades long alternative to simply coming to the table to work with imperfect people, particularly when you note that the result is still imperfect people. As Bill Clinton points out, we are over 99% the same [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo